Corruption like terrorism can have many forms and manifestations. It can be crude and rough but it can also be sophisticated and suave. These aspects and nuances notwithstanding, corruption is corruption because it is the infringement of the rights of people. Law makes no distinction and if the law is allowed to have its way. Society will reap the benefits of justice and good governance. We have a case to elucidate the point we have made.
A PIL has been filed in the High Court pleading that appointments made by the Speakers to 37 posts in the Secretariat of the LA be declared null and void because, as the litigants claim, these were made clandestinely throwing the rules and procedure to winds. The court heard the case and came to the conclusion that it should be probed into by the State Vigilance Organization. After conducting investigation into the case under rules and procedures, the SVO came to a very curious conclusion. While establishing a case of illegal appointments made to 37 vacancies by three Speakers during their respective tenure, the SVO says that actually appointments are not illegal but the legal procedure of filling the vacancies has not been followed as per rules and procedures. This is contradiction in terms. The contention of the SVO is that the Speakers have the competence under existing rules to make appointments but the methodology adopted for making these appointments does not conform to the rules. This logic is not justifiable on the face of it.
The right procedure is that the vacant posts are identified along with the requisite qualifications. These are advertised properly, applications called within the stipulated time, screened by the competent authority and short listed candidates are called for interview and final selection. The contention of the Speakers who have made appointments and who were probed by the SVO is that the rules of procedure of making appointments have not been drafted and as such, the Speakers exercised the powers vested in them by the Act and made appointments. In the first place, if the rules of procedure were not drafted, the Speakers should have taken steps first to draft the rules and then exercise their powers. Secondly, the CSR has very clearly and meticulously laid down the procedure of making recruitment to Government vacancies. The Speakers should have necessarily taken recourse to the adoption of the CSR for these recruitments. That has not been done and instead, they have made it a discretionary affair in which their own decision has been made the rule.
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly is the custodian of the rule of law in the State. He is the first who should be on the side of the law and propriety. The Speakers should have consulted the State Public Service Commission or the Department of Law to enlighten it on the legal aspects of the case of making appointments in absence of the procedure laid down formally. Certainly, these agencies would have advised the Speakers to handle the case within the framework of the procedure set forth by the CSR. The Speakers have not considered the unavoidable option but have taken arbitrary decision.
It has to be reminded that no agency of the State can make arbitrary decisions especially in matters where general good of the people of the State is involved. There are clear rules saying that no discrimination is to be made while conducting recruitment to Government vacancies. The idea is to recruit the best and most intelligent applicants to run the administration of the State efficiently. The way in which the Speakers have made appointments to these 37 vacancies denies opportunity to deserving and better qualified and experienced candidates. This is a loss to the entire society that it is bereft of the services of capable and most deducted functionary.
Follow our WhatsApp channel